January 6th, 2013 / 11:40 pm


  1. Brooks Sterritt

      This was interesting: “I don’t think art is a conversation between the reader and the creator. It’s an intensely selfish obsession and a personal, internal dialogue. Just exactly like experience.”

  2. lorian long

      does the site link to the film he showed?

  3. lorian long

      also, ‘i don’t excuse idiots just because their art is as honest as their stupidity’

  4. Freddy Ruppert

      I think this is an interesting statement as well, but I keep thinking, if art is only an intensely selfish obsession and a personal, internal dialogue, then there would be absolutely no need to ever make what one creates public. One has to ask themselves what is the point of making a work public? Seems to me one would just create things and keep them to themselves if this was 100% true.

  5. mimi

      but aren’t you ever interested in hearing/reading the “intensely selfish obsession and… personal, internal dialogue” of someone? not everyone, of course, but of SOME one (artist or not)

  6. deadgod

      Can’t answer reliably or courteously as to Guest’s nosiness–I am sometimes a ‘you’ who’s interested in – let me re-phrase – private experiences other people have–, but Guest wasn’t referring to her or his interest.

      She or he was referring to someone who shows other people something — who makes conditions for the possibility of others’ experience..

      That’s the crux of Guest’s crux, right?: how can one disclose in a way that that disclosure remains exclusively “self-ish” and “internal” and not at all “a conversation”?

      Whether the statement Brooks quotes is knowingly (or fructively) paradoxical or not, it sounds self-contradictory.

  7. mimi

      i know that Guest wasn’t referring to his or her interest (i asked ‘rhetorically’ and ‘in general’)

      i also know that I, mimi, am OFTEN interested in SOME one’s “intensely selfish obsession and… personal, internal dialogue” – artist or not – depends on WHO’s we’re talking about!

      i think that an obsession can be selfish, and that a personal, internal dialogue can be just that, personal and internal, but either, obsession or dialogue, can be ‘made public’ –

      ‘selfish’ does not preclude ‘public’, nor does ‘personal’ –
      but ‘internal’ does, i think

  8. Brooks Sterritt

      There seems to be a distinction between what art “is” and what ones does with the art afterwards.

  9. M. Kitchell

      just, you know, for the record, Sotos has a book called PUBLIC as well as one called SELFISH, LITTLE. Also, his newest, MINE is pretty close to “personal,” no?

  10. lorian long

      thanx for the vid, bb

  11. lorian long
  12. mimi

      good to know, thanks
      interested in exploring further

  13. Brooks Sterritt